Talk:Fluffy
From The Lion King Wiki
|
This a talk page. Please follow these guidelines before editing this page. Click here to start a new topic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
on the rich editor.
Do we have a link to the SP trailer that showed the original celebration? If so, it would be great to cite that as a source. ~ Moka 10:26, 8 April 2011 (PDT)
- Maybe http://homepage.mac.com/maanerud/movies/simbapridetrailer.mov ? --Nitrol 10:52, 8 April 2011 (PDT)
- Cool, they used the original version of He Lives in You :) I'll cite this video in the article. Nice find! ~ Moka 11:26, 8 April 2011 (PDT)
Not to be rude, but perhaps before undoing the entire edit I made, you should post what you think is wrong on the edit page. Obviously, the paragraph before on the page was very opinionated, which is why I revised it. Remember, that all the articles need to stay neutral of any opinion. Still took out a few things, please use the talk page before editing further, that's what the page is for. --Wildsimba 15:32, 8 April 2011 (PDT)
- I agree -- The articles must stay neutral of opinion. I don't think the article should take a stance on who Fluffy is supposed to be or other external elements such as that. It should focus on Fluffy's scope: the brief 3 seconds we see him/her and the references to him/her such as the statement by the film makers and the SP trailer. You guys need to work together to bring the article to an agreeable neutral state, where bare bone facts are laid out. There can be fan speculation sections, but they need to be done even more professionally. They need to be common theories, concise statements, and courteous to other points of view. ~ Moka 21:40, 8 April 2011 (PDT)
Actually
SBS, there is an official concept sketch from the production of SP that proves they were considering Chaka as a character. ~ Moka 13:14, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
- He thought Chaka wasn't? --Wildsimba 15:35, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
- Actually I haven't found anything to support Chaka. The concept sketch I was thinking about was for Shani. Sorry about that. ~ Moka 17:27, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
- Huh? Chaka does have a concept sketch, it's on the actual DVD for the movie. --Wildsimba 17:48, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
- This is the file I was thinking of:
If you find another concept sketch with Chaka labeled in it, then share it. But I've never seen something like this for Chaka. ~ Moka 20:22, 12 April 2011 (PDT)- Huh? I've never even seen that picture before. They did show concept art for Chaka on the DVD though, if I can find it. --Wildsimba 10:02, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- This is the file I was thinking of:
- Huh? Chaka does have a concept sketch, it's on the actual DVD for the movie. --Wildsimba 17:48, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
- Actually I haven't found anything to support Chaka. The concept sketch I was thinking about was for Shani. Sorry about that. ~ Moka 17:27, 12 April 2011 (PDT)
Uhhm, okay.
This article is kinda like a TL;DR now. Especially the "Boy, or Girl?" section. Can we perhaps take out a few details, that are over analyzing things? I tried reading it, but hardly understood it, because half the section is talking about dark ear rings, and it's like... What? --Wildsimba 10:26, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- I doubt it's confusing for a completely new reader. And I'd think if the fan arguments are to be kept in it'd be best to take in all the facts from the film instead of arguing with just a few of them as if they were all there is to it. If it's gotten confusing, I suggest we just ditch the fan arguments completely and be satisfied with what the commentary track and documentaries say and how the sequel film confirms the fruit juice mattter to relate to the gender. As in that we wouldn't throw in any fan point of views whatsoever into it when it comes to the appearance. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Okay well first of all, the fruit juice thing doesn't prove anything. Most likely, the film makers didn't care enough to have the events in the exact same order during the ceremony. Or, maybe the order doesn't matter at all, and as long as the cub is anointed and presented everyone's happy. Rafiki could've anointed Fluffy after the presentation. To me, the fruit juice argument is just another theory that is dependent on too many opinions. Just because it's your theory doesn't make it fact. That aside, if this article is just going to be filled with random theories like "Timon bit Zira's ear" I think it might be best to just take them all out and stick to the absolute facts and what we know for certain. There can maybe be a fan theories section put in later but right now we apparently can't handle it. ~ Moka 12:38, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- I only added in the "timon bit Zira's ear" because it is actually a fan theory I've heard quite a bit, so it's not really a random theory. But yeah, I agree all the fan theorys just be left out for now, INCLUDING the fruit juice theory, as well as your theorys that Kiara is Fluffy. These are NOT fact, and if we're going to keep it factual, those don't need to be there. Also, for now on, I think we should post on the talk page before editing a controversial article like Kopa or Fluffy, we all need to be at a equal playing field for this wiki to work out. So if everyone agrees, that'd be the point in which you edit the article. It's much more appreciated if you discuss something first, though of course minor edits don't matter, just if your going to change some larger then a typo, it's best to ask an opinion just before you edit in, because you never know, they could prove you wrong. --Wildsimba 13:10, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Look, I didn't mean that my theory makes the fruit juice relation a fact for the canon cub's original means. Heck, I'm absolutely sure the canon creators just didn't give a rat's bum about how they designed the cub in any way. But I was suggesting the fruit juice detail to be pointed out because it's significance is official. As in, it became officially significant by the official sequel's makers using Fluffy in their official footage (the official trailer) and then making the fruit juice detail to be about the gender in the movie itself. As in, the fruit juice's significance isn't canon for Fluffy's gender but it most certainly is official for Fluffy's gender. This is also why Fluffy being Kiara in the official movie universe is a fact. It would be debatable if the sequel's official trailer didn't have Fluffy in it but it does, or if the trailer had Fluffy, Kiara and some otehr cub but it has only Fluffy and Kiara. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said. Also, the point you're trying to make about the fruit juice is still a theory. The trailers to movies aren't quite official sources. They occur before the final product is released. It doesn't make anything a fact on its own, and if we took the same approach with other things we would get confused very quickly. The fact that Fluffy was in the SP trailer should attribute to the argument that Fluffy and Kiara are the same cub. There are valid arguments to show that Fluffy and Kiara are not the same cub as well and we can't just hide those arguments because we don't believe them and we can't base an entire point of view on one argument. This is why it's good to stick to the absolute facts in the article itself, and maybe have a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are the same and a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are not the same. Something like that could go under the fan theories section that I was talking about. We just can't take a stance on something this controversial. We need to be neutral on the wiki. This is not the forum where you can blurt out your opinions. ~ Moka 13:53, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Trailers to movies aren't quite official sources? But of course they are as they're made by the same production team / for the same profuction. Does someone honestly think they'd just release an official trailer for the world to see and then go making Fluffy into someone they don't show nor mention anywehere? Sometimes common sense is a good friend to confusing facts: they released the official trailer making it seem like Fluffy is Kiara and then their film indeed introduces only Kiara with no references to any other cub. Resulting in the fact that in the movie universe Kiara has been blended into Fluffy whereas no other cub has ever been blended into Fluffy. Fluffy = Kiara = fact. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Trailers are made to show off the movie they're advertising. They are usually put together by a marketing team before the production team is even done editing the film. Yes, it is obvious that Kiara was intended to be Fluffy, you don't need to prove that to me, we're not debating that. We're debating the worthiness of a cheaply made direct-to-video movie trailer. The point is, we can't take a stance on such a thing because we don't have proof -- we only have evidence. ~ Moka 14:48, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Look, aren't we after the facts here? And shouldn't we thus regard the facts from each most official source available and base the information on them combined in order to provide as factually informative article as possible?
- For Kiara the sequel film is the tier 1 canon: The film's fact is that her design and ceremony are different from Fluffy's, but just as much a fact in it is that it doesn't show or mention anyone else but Kiara. So we need to look into the next most official source to find the most factual answer to the risen question. In lack of a commentary track from the creators the official trailer becomes the tier 2 canon: and its facts are that there's Fluffy and no infant Kiara from the film, and that there's cub Kiara but no other cub. Great, now we've reagrded all the official facts from both most crucial canon tiers available. And it seriously can not be denied that the most official identity to Fluffy is Kiara. Maybe that's what the paragraph should say? Instead of "...are supposed to be the same" it could say "the most official identity is Kiara"? --Superbabysimba 14 April 2011 (PDT)
- Wikipedia isn't for what is MOST official, it's for what IS official. And saying Kiara is Fluffy is not official. As Moka said, just because Fluffy was used in a cheap trailer for a direct-to-vhs movie, doesn't prove anything. Most trailers actually AREN'T made by the creators, but a marketing team. I know this as a fact, because I'm taking a marketing class right now. --Wildsimba 18:58, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Although those are practically saying the same thing, yes it should be reworded that way. Yes we're seeking the facts, but you're mistaking evidence for proof even when there is evidence for the opposing side. What's happening now in the controversial articles is called counter-productive edit warring, and if it keeps going on, I'm going to lock the articles from non-administrators. And for the last time, WS. It's called The Lion King Wiki, not Wikipedia. It's a separate site that runs the same software as Wikipedia >.> ~ Moka 19:08, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- LOL whatevs. BTW, the first thing I told you you should do is lock the articles from non-admins, but yet you didn't listen to me, and look at the where the articles are headed. :P --Wildsimba 19:16, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Sorry for once again overestimating people's capacity to collaborate. ~ Moka 19:26, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- LOL whatevs. BTW, the first thing I told you you should do is lock the articles from non-admins, but yet you didn't listen to me, and look at the where the articles are headed. :P --Wildsimba 19:16, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Trailers are made to show off the movie they're advertising. They are usually put together by a marketing team before the production team is even done editing the film. Yes, it is obvious that Kiara was intended to be Fluffy, you don't need to prove that to me, we're not debating that. We're debating the worthiness of a cheaply made direct-to-video movie trailer. The point is, we can't take a stance on such a thing because we don't have proof -- we only have evidence. ~ Moka 14:48, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Trailers to movies aren't quite official sources? But of course they are as they're made by the same production team / for the same profuction. Does someone honestly think they'd just release an official trailer for the world to see and then go making Fluffy into someone they don't show nor mention anywehere? Sometimes common sense is a good friend to confusing facts: they released the official trailer making it seem like Fluffy is Kiara and then their film indeed introduces only Kiara with no references to any other cub. Resulting in the fact that in the movie universe Kiara has been blended into Fluffy whereas no other cub has ever been blended into Fluffy. Fluffy = Kiara = fact. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said. Also, the point you're trying to make about the fruit juice is still a theory. The trailers to movies aren't quite official sources. They occur before the final product is released. It doesn't make anything a fact on its own, and if we took the same approach with other things we would get confused very quickly. The fact that Fluffy was in the SP trailer should attribute to the argument that Fluffy and Kiara are the same cub. There are valid arguments to show that Fluffy and Kiara are not the same cub as well and we can't just hide those arguments because we don't believe them and we can't base an entire point of view on one argument. This is why it's good to stick to the absolute facts in the article itself, and maybe have a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are the same and a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are not the same. Something like that could go under the fan theories section that I was talking about. We just can't take a stance on something this controversial. We need to be neutral on the wiki. This is not the forum where you can blurt out your opinions. ~ Moka 13:53, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Look, I didn't mean that my theory makes the fruit juice relation a fact for the canon cub's original means. Heck, I'm absolutely sure the canon creators just didn't give a rat's bum about how they designed the cub in any way. But I was suggesting the fruit juice detail to be pointed out because it's significance is official. As in, it became officially significant by the official sequel's makers using Fluffy in their official footage (the official trailer) and then making the fruit juice detail to be about the gender in the movie itself. As in, the fruit juice's significance isn't canon for Fluffy's gender but it most certainly is official for Fluffy's gender. This is also why Fluffy being Kiara in the official movie universe is a fact. It would be debatable if the sequel's official trailer didn't have Fluffy in it but it does, or if the trailer had Fluffy, Kiara and some otehr cub but it has only Fluffy and Kiara. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- I only added in the "timon bit Zira's ear" because it is actually a fan theory I've heard quite a bit, so it's not really a random theory. But yeah, I agree all the fan theorys just be left out for now, INCLUDING the fruit juice theory, as well as your theorys that Kiara is Fluffy. These are NOT fact, and if we're going to keep it factual, those don't need to be there. Also, for now on, I think we should post on the talk page before editing a controversial article like Kopa or Fluffy, we all need to be at a equal playing field for this wiki to work out. So if everyone agrees, that'd be the point in which you edit the article. It's much more appreciated if you discuss something first, though of course minor edits don't matter, just if your going to change some larger then a typo, it's best to ask an opinion just before you edit in, because you never know, they could prove you wrong. --Wildsimba 13:10, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Okay well first of all, the fruit juice thing doesn't prove anything. Most likely, the film makers didn't care enough to have the events in the exact same order during the ceremony. Or, maybe the order doesn't matter at all, and as long as the cub is anointed and presented everyone's happy. Rafiki could've anointed Fluffy after the presentation. To me, the fruit juice argument is just another theory that is dependent on too many opinions. Just because it's your theory doesn't make it fact. That aside, if this article is just going to be filled with random theories like "Timon bit Zira's ear" I think it might be best to just take them all out and stick to the absolute facts and what we know for certain. There can maybe be a fan theories section put in later but right now we apparently can't handle it. ~ Moka 12:38, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
